Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article. It is already a good article and I would appreciate feedback on what's necessary for it to merit FA status.
I've conducted a pretty major rewrite on this article, and now I believe it meets (and possibly exceeds) FA criteria. It is a bit long but I do believe it is comprehensive and the article perfectly summarises everything on the singer. All comments are appreciated! 750h+22:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having made lots of edits to the page already, I'd be more than happy to help with comments other users leave here, and am too involved to review it myself. Given how the page was delisted in 2012 for source fabrication issues, verifying the content will be especially important here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i've listed this article for peer review because it's the first article i've created from scratch. while the album is somewhat obscure i believe it has what it takes to get to GA, and i'd really love any feedback that could move it closer to that goal. I wrote (from what I can remember) essentially every word on the page, which is a pretty startling difference from my usual editing style (noodling around and making tiny copyediting changes), and so i feel like it's a good test of my abilities to make this as good as it can be.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring this article up to featured article status, especially since it has already passed GA.
Would like to take this to FAC. It's been through GAC. It also had some very helpful feedback at a subsequent DYK. Some of this I've actioned, some I'm interested to understand whether there's broader consensus on or whether it's more personal preference.
Many thanks! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is my first peer review, so only have two suggestions. Firstly, there are some duplicated references: 3 & 19, 9 & 17, 10 & 14 & 24. Secondly, I think more images could be added, especially for FAC e.g. one of Lauryn Hill for example near where her vocals are discussed and I expect there might be other opportunities to add images elsehwere, otherwise it looks very good to me Lajmmoore (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time, Lucy! Well spotted RE: duplicated references - this is fixed. I've added images of Lauryn Hill and Nas as two of the most significant figures in the article. Looking at other FAs of musicals and albums this seems about the right balance of images-to-value-added (eg. compared to a gallery of the whole cast), but interested in any feedback from folks who think something more is necessary. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Tintor2: This looks well but I recommend certain stuff.
Avoid small paragraphs. Think of Wikipedia's writing style as a formal letter. Try giving each paragraph its own subject.
Shouldn't the ratings box be at the top of the section?
Reception could be rearranged avoid "X says that, Y says that" Rather than that style, try giving making paragraphs about different aspects of the album. I'm not sure if the music project gave that line but I've tried doing that in video game and anime reception sections like Devil May Cry 4 or Darker than Black.
I agree with Tintor2 on merging some of the smaller paragraphs that have a similar message (e.g., the first two paragraphs in 'concept and storyline' around gender and women as inspirations)
Consider mixing up some sentences that start with a date (e.g., In August 2023, New York Post was, In August 2024, the album's release date was)
There several quotes that can be paraphrased without losing its potency? (e.g., "bring what we love about them as emcees to the table"; "doesn't feel like it has anything to do with gang life now"; "smacks of corniness to those who aren't already musical-theater fans")
I would move one of the images to the left to make it more interesting
You can link some of the websites/magazines in the references
Consider separating self-published sources like interviews and Lin-Manuel website (see Brian David Gilbert for inspiration); BUT i'm not sure if this practice is applied only for biographies or for any subject
Consider moving charts below 'personnel' per WP:ALBUMSTYLE
This was previously its own prose section, but after some feedback at DYK I made it a table and combined it with other sections. On reflection, I think having its own section is better, as combining release/critical reception/chart performance into one is a bit much, but I recognise there's a trade-off with WP:OVERSECTION for a small table. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"unexpected pairings this quote doesn't seem to be capped with an end quote
I would like to see more about his political views, especially in they are included in the lyrics of his music. Also would be nice to have a couple of examples of the descriptions given for his musical style from songs he wrote. Tiamut (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Set in rural north India, it stars Shahana Goswami as a widow who inherits her late husband's job of police constable and is involved in the investigation of the murder and rape of a Dalit teenager.
You aim to give this to GA? If so there are some issues that might be easy to explore:
Lead: The film won multiple awards. There is no need to mention all those in the introduction. Just make generalizations and add critical response too.
Plot. For a two hour movie it feels the plot section is too long. I'd recommend trimming it and mixing small paragraphs.
I'm not familiar with live-action film articles but shouldn't actor be listed? It feels too small.
What locations were used to record the film? If there is a certain city you could use a certain free image.
@Tintor2 Trimmed the lead and plot. There are various characters listed in the film itself, but I'm considering that I should stick to notable actors as professional and nonprofessional actors were casted. The ones currently listed are the only ones I can see in a secondary source, looking at MOS:FILMCAST.
The city, as noted in the article, is in Lucknow, but no source specifies a place within the city. The best I can do is provide an image of a market at night, if not a cityscape. I can only find a trailer release (see [1] and [2]) for promotion. RFNirmala (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to take this article to GAN. While I don't normally bother with peer review, I confess that I am overly familiar with this subject matter. As some of the content of this article is a bit abstract or perhaps arcane, I believe that the quality of this article could be much improved with feedback from an uninvolved party. I should be most happy to receive any commentary that one is willing to provide. Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎04:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Comments after a quick skim: I think this article is ready for a GAN. I suggest splitting up some of the larger paragraphs: usually I recommend 4-6 sentences per paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I of course intend to take the article to GAN, but if you have any other commentary, I should be glad to hear it. Any gaps that you'd like filled, anything incomprehensible? I shall take a look at sorting the paragraphs. Yours, &c.RGloucester — ☎11:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Any editor can comment on a PR at any time, so any editor interested can comment below. I won't be commenting further, but if you are looking for additional comments I suggest posting on the Wikiprojects attached to this article, or open a GAN. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this +article for peer review because... I'd like to know where is places on the content assessment scale, and I would like to know how I could improve on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(chess)
@Spectralarrow: Not sure how energy you have :). The best place to start is to make sure every paragraph has references; and depending on the presence or absence of references we would change/add/removed information.
This blog written by James Stripes doesn't seem to be reliable. Can Stripes be qualified as a chess expert? If not, it should be switched with another source.
Consider merging 'Placement and movement' section with 'Status in games' under 'Game rules' as both of the section describe king-related rules.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at FAC, and I was recommended by @SchroCat: to open a peer review for it. Any comments for improvement would be greatly appreciated.
I'm requesting a peer review of the article Daniela Lalita before renominating it for GA status. During the GA review, general issues with the prose were criticized, possibly a broadness issue. In addition, when reviewing the sources, the reviewer found that some of the statements in the text were not supported by them. Since then, I've checked sources, added new ones, restructured the article, and worked on the prose. I'd appreciate comments on these issues.
Thanks, ◉wwwWiki◉11:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WwwWiki: Comments after a quick skim: I think this article is ready for a GAN. I would expand the lead a little bit to ensure all major aspects of Lalita's biography are mentioned. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Hi! After the reviewer in the GA2 process also wrote that the lead should be expanded, I did so. Would you mind proofreading it again (just the lead, as there were almost no other changes)? Thank you very much! ◉wwwWiki◉16:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WwwWiki: I made some edits to the lead. Feel free to revert if not helpful. For "Around the age of 19," Do we know her exact age? A year might be better. Otherwise there are no other issues. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Lalita said in an interview that she moved to the US when she was 18 or 19 years old. The exact year is unknown. It is also not known when she finished her studies, as New York University has not published yearbooks since 2012. Based on your change, it sounds as if she only studied in 2015. I have therefore changed the sentence again. The same applies to her SoundCloud releases and her work as a DJ. 2016 was only the starting year for both. After reviewing all known sources, I have summarized this sentence with the following about performance art, as both took place in the same period from 2016 to 2018. ◉wwwWiki◉02:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A previous FAC nomination received no comments. Perhaps I was too hasty. I would like this to be a TFA for the song's 15th anniversary, but before I do another nomination, I think a peer review would be best.
@Lazman321: I recommend reviewing several articles at WP:FAC within the next few months: many editors will choose to review nominators with high review-to-article counts. Personally, I know that each FAC usually needs at least 5 reviewers to complete a review before it is successful, so I recommend getting a review count that is at least 5:1. You can see information about previous nominations and reviews at [3]. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because... I believe the article has strong potential to reach Featured Article status and it just doesn't sit right to me for it to stay at GA status since May. This is one of my first major article expansions and Good Article nominations since February (and probably my longest article), and I would like feedback on any sourcing or prose issues that I may have overlooked.
I've listed this article for peer review because my goal is to have the article to reach either good article or featured article status. I have recently completed a major overhaul on the article, working on and off on trying to improve readability, organize information in chronological order, review and improve references, and meet policies and guidelines as well as creating all works related to the subject. I appreciate any and all feedback and contributions to achieve this goal. If there any changes or improvement that should be made, please let me know.
Hi all, over the last couple of months I've rewritten and expanded most of the wikipage for the Japan Cup, a horse racing event held in Japan every year. Since the vast majority of this page is now my work, I'd love to hear other people's opinions of the article's current state to make sure I've not overlooked anything; this is the first time I've given an article such a large overhaul, so all advice is welcomed!
Having come this far, I'm very keen to get this to GA status, and if successful see if I can take the page the whole way and get it to Featured Article status; any and all feedback and contributions to achieve either of these goals would be greatly appreciated. I believe this page follows nearly all MOSs I know of, though I'm aware MOS:LEADCITE is an exception to that currently - I'm still mulling over a graceful way to include the remaining references in the main text.
@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: I added citation needed tags to the article, which should be resolved before a GAN. The "Records" section is also mostly uncited, which should be rectified. Each sub-section of the "History" section is quite long: I suggest using more level 3 headings and trimming the text to make it more readable. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking a look Z1720. While I'll take a look at trimming/adding more level 3 headings later, I've added citations to the areas you highlighted in the main text and the records section (or removed the sentence entirely). RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently promoted to GA status; I am looking to make it a Featured article, starting with a peer review. This is especially important as I have written around 90% of the article, and I would like a more neutral perspective on its quality.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on its overall structure, sourcing, and clarity, and to identify any issues that should be addressed before a potential Good Article nomination.
The lead should be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Every level 2 heading should be summarised in the lead.
The "Development" and "Reception" sections are quite long. I suggest summarising the text more effectively and using level 3 headings to break up the text
Suggest using [iabot.toolforge.org/index.php] to archive the websites. You might also want to expand out these citations by adding access dates and author last names.
This article has numerous credible sources, comprehensive prose, and many qualities one expects of a Featured Article. I'm hoping to get this article to FA-Class, so I'm first starting with a peer review for a general indication of whether or not this article is ready for nomination.
@QuicksmartTortoise513 It doesn't look like you've had anything to do with this article to date. The preface to WP:FAC says Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it so that's going to be an issue. RoySmith(talk)20:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not clarifying my relative lack of participation with this article. I will say that, per the XTools page on Gus Grissom, the majority of significant contributors/regular editors are inactive, though Hawkeye7 did respond to my query on the feasibility of nominating this article with positive feedback. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to understand is why this topic is notable? It is quite common for passenger cars in transit systems to be converted to utility use once they're past their useful life. The only thing I can see about this car that's different from any other utility car is that a bunch of trainspotters started a facebook page about it and two (as far as I can tell) non-notable musicians wrote a non-notable song about it. I'm not being sarcastic here, I truly want to know what makes this notable. Most of the sources are in Czech which I can't read. That's not a fundamental problem, but as a practical matter it does make it difficult for me to peruse the sources. Perhaps you could point me at specific sources I should look at using the automated translation tools available to me to satisfy the question of notability? RoySmith(talk)00:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it however I don't know if what I have done is good and I need some ideas on improving it
The second sentence of the lead is too long, this clause in particular is clumsy: "and also designed and worked on several inventions such as an improved underwater mine used in the Crimean war." I think this could be simplified by removing the words "also" "and "worked on several inventions such as".
The name of his wife is listed as Antoinette in the lead and Karolina on the info box. I think that's confusing and should be updated so the names match and/or so the article includes an explanation of why (I'm assuming she went by her middle name, or whatever the reason is).
Who were his parents and what were their occupations/backgrounds? It seems like this information must be available considering how prominent the family is (and the family itself has its own article).
Early life and education. This sentence is confusing: "In 1827, he married Andriette Ahlsell, of whose children eight survived infancy." As written, it's not clear whether he was the father of the eight children or if the children were born after the marriage. Something like this would be clearer: "He married Andriette Ahlsell. They had eight children: Names of Children here, all of whom survived infancy." If the children were born before the marriage, you could say something like "Nobel had eight children with Andriette Ahlsell, beginning with Elder Child in year. He married Ahlsell in 1827."
St. Petersburg and the Crimean war. This sentence is unclear: "Here he was attached to the Evangelical Lutheran Church..." What does "attached" mean? Was he a clergyman? Or did he just attend/belong to a Lutheran church? Really just replacing the verb with something more specific is all that's needed here.
St. Petersburg. Another confusing phrase: "naval mines that Nicholas I took interest in using in the war." Could be simplified with "naval mines used by Nicholas I's forces during the War."
Why is he referred to as Immanuel (first name) at the end of the Crimean War section? Elsewhere he's referred to as Nobel and there's not a relative elsewhere in the sentence that he needs to be disambiguated with.
Return to Sweden: What was the purpose of his experimentations with nitroglycerin? What were they trying to achieve? What experiments were they doing when the accident occurred? We might not know this info but if we do, it should be added. A general reader would want to know, I think.
Runon sentences in the last section: "Shortly after the explosion, Nobel suffered a stroke and was confined to his bed during this time he wrote the paper ”Försök till anskaffande af arbetsförtjenst till förekommande af den nu, genom brist deraf tvungna utvandringsfebern", published after his death in 1870." Split this into two sentences.
Split this runon sentence as well: Nobel's son Alfred would continue his work with nitroglycerin going on to invent dynamite, after his death in 1896 he gave his to establish the Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Foundation, which manages them in his family's namesake, in 1900 and 1901 respectively.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recommended following FA nomination. The introduction and “structure” and “gardens” section of the Description were already fixed. Everything else was recommended to be reviewed for grammar and phrasing.
I've listed this article for peer review because the last one was made 20 years ago, this page has changed a lot since then. I'd also like to get it to GA status. I think an area of improvement are the sources themselves, there's a lot of them that come from the same publisher (like for instance "RTP Ensina") I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing, but its a point I just wanted to bring up. Regarding other possible issues that this page might have, I'm curious to read your opinions about that.
Thanks, GumballNine1Nine (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citation needed tags to the article. These will need to be resolved before a GAN.
At over 14,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and detailed. I suggest spinning out some information or summarising the information more effectively. Some placed that can be spun out or reduced are the lead, History, Climate, Politics, Economy, Education, Music, and Sport.
Ref 487: IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia so this should be removed.
"Page, Melvin Eugene; Sonnenburg, Penny M. (2003). ' is not used as an inline citation so it can be used as a citation or removed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is still labelled as a Stub class and has not been updated. A lot of work has been done on it by a couple of other editors and me, and I don't think it should be considered a Stub class anymore, but I also don't know what category it should belong in. If it is at Good article level, please let me know just in case anything needs to go further, I have never been through this process before. If there is also anything that needs editing or if there is potential for a high-level standard, I'm happy to adjust or let someone adjust for me. I've never sent an article for any type of review in my 10-ish years of editing Wikipedia, so this whole process will be new to me, hence the peer review.
I have added some citation needed tags to the article, which should be resolved before a GAN.
Some of the sections are quite large, which makes navigation and reading the text difficult. I suggest breaking up some of the larger sections with level 2 or 3 headings (I recommend 2-4 paragraphs per section).
Some of the "Pre-match" information seems misplaced: The broadcast information seems to be repeated in "Broadcast and viewership", so I think it can be removed here. Officiating information probably belongs in match details.
Thank you so much @Z1720 for your help. I'll definitely fix those changes required once the Christmas break subsides (hence why I haven't responded as quickly as I normally would). I'll have a read through and see which sections need to be divided up to make it easier to read.
@Pr0m37h3u$: Comments after a quick skim: In general, the article is quite short. I suggest looking for more sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar and Google News, or databases that you can access through your local library system. After expanding the article, you can nominate this to GAN.
I've listed this article for peer review to know if the it needs improvement and if it is also ready to be nominated as a Good Article candidate. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑(𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔)04:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D.18th: Comments after a quick skim: I think the "Cast" section can be trimmed to just the main cast members (and maybe supporting) while the "special appearances" section is removed. The "listicles" section can also be removed as unencyclopedic. Once those are resolved this can probably be nominated at GAN. Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D.18th: Looking at other television good articles like 30 Rock and Awake (TV series) I do not see the same list of guest actors. I think the list can either be removed or the cast section can be put into more prose, with the guest actors and their significance explained in more detail. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
I humbly request that the "Undisclosed Paid Tag" on this article be reviewed for following reasons:
1. The article was met with persistent vandalism from angry users following a controversy that the subject got himself into. (See edit history)
2. The explanation from the editor (royiswariii) who added the tag was merely speculative.
"Added
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
tag: I noticed this from Lolito Go's Facebook page was linked. This is might be a undisclosed paid."
The presence of a Facebook link alone does not establish paid editing or undisclosed compensation. If there is specific evidence of compensation or a contractual relationship, please point it out so it can be addressed accordingly. Otherwise, the basis for the tag appears speculative.
3. The article is generally neutral in tone and is not promotional.
4. The article is very-well sourced with citations from reputable news outlets.
5. The subject of the article meets the notability requirement in his particular field. (OPM music).
I hope this gets noticed and taken action with.
I'm not sure why you want to make this more concise. It's quite short as it is; I'd be looking to expand it with more detail. Certainly, you want to add a photograph of the building. If there's not one already in Commons, go take one! Or list it on WP:RP.
There are parts of the text lacking citations. As a quick rule of thumb, every paragraph should end with an in-line citation, and there's a few of those missing.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have expanded this article a pretty decent amount when I found it at start class. I want to try to make it a good article so I’m wondering what I’d need to make it that.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have tarted my work on the Trafalgar campaign, starting with this. I don't have any of the main sources, and have only just updated the sources.
This article discusses Nerio, a scion of a Florentine banking family with a strong interest in Frankish Greece, who acquired substantial domains in Achaea and wrested the Duchy of Athens from its Catalan rulers. I have submitted it for peer review and would welcome suggestions on improving its prose and analytical depth.
You shouldn't cite Wikipedia as a source per WP:Circular. You either need to find alternate sources or trace the sources cited in the Wiki articles you cite.
In general, I think you need better and more expansive secondary sources. Now most of the sources are contemporary newspaper articles (not necessarily appropriate for WP:GNG), archival sources (could be considered WP:Original research), and Irwin's own unpublished memoirs (again concerns about OR and WP:IS). Can you find any secondary sources commenting on why Irwin is significant? For example, the sentence "Irwin’s career reflects the evolution of British military medicine from colonial campaigns to industrial warfare" isn't appropriate if you can't find a source other than Irwin himself.
In terms of formatting, I find all the headings with only one sentence each cluttered and difficult to read. It would probably be better to consolidate this into a catch-all "Career" section, unless there is sufficient content that warrants separate section for each campaign.
There are excessive subheadings. There is no reason for there to be sections and sections of paragraphs with just one sentence in each. Please either combine sections or add more info to each section.
The lede is too short.
Wikipedia and Wikisource should not be used as citations.
Irwin's own memoir should not be the main source.
Why does source 10 not have a link.
Sources should not be shared between a sources section and an external links section.
His death being in Bideford, Devon, England is in the infobox but not the body.
His birth date is in the infobox and lede but not the body.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded (material and sources). It was assessed by the Military portal as a B-Class and recognized the potential for GA. Nevertheless, they suggested to go through a peer-review first to get feedback. Any input to improve this article is greatly appreciated.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently passed GA and I was considering a run at FAC. This would be my first non-military history article at FAC (I would normally run it through their rigorous A-class review first) so I want to check it is of sufficient quality first. Please be as rigorous as possible in your review, I am happy to take any and all comments including if you think it is not suitable for FAC - Dumelow (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made several notworthy modifications to the article since it was initially created, and feel it could use another review from other editors.
Hello @GrandDuchyConti:! This article is a short yet a nice read. For me, this is ready for GAN. My comments. Ping me for any reply:
owever Gerard had withdrawn from the investment by the time he died. is unsourced.
May we have sources for both notes? We can indicate it's spelled as Snowe in some inline texts, and add any source for his suspension within the footnote.
Minor points include: archiving web sources, adding links (an Internet Archive scan can do), and cite web parameters (such as having an author with last name Maryland and givenn name Preservation)
@GrandDuchyConti: I added a citation needed tag to the article. My biggest suggestion is to look for more sources so you can expand the article. Some places to find more information are WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, doaj.org, archive.org, or databases you can access from your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Protoeus: This is an ambitious article to have as your first GA. Perhaps consider an article with a smaller scope. Here are some comments if still interested:
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lead and other exceptions). The article currently has some uncited text.
At over 14,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest spinning out text that can go into other articles and summarising what is left more effectively.
"8 Spies Who Leaked Atomic Bomb Intelligence to the Soviets"." is not considered a reliable source and should be replaced or removed.
I am not a fan of block quotes, and I think these can be removed and summarised instead.
I mentioned in the Talk page: size is a unique topic which could use more coverage.
The section "Properties and structure" has two introductions: three paragraphs below that title and "Physical parameters". Mass is discussed three different places in that section. I would reorg. The first paragraph is Definitions. The next two are "No hair theorem". Mass being the most basic property should be first; I would rename "Physical parameters" to "Mass" and "Mass" to "Mass ranges" underneath Since the no-hair section used angular momentum, so should the section title.
Some sentences here have too many sources. More than two sources always makes me wonder what is going on. One reliable source and one popular source is enough. For example "It is unlikely that black holes with masses greater than 50-100 billion times that of the Sun could exist now, as black hole growth is limited by the age of the universe." had four sources. None of these sources verify the claim. I deleted two and changed the content to match the sources.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to the level of GA-class. As this is the first article I've ever created (which is done by draft), I currently do not have experience on how to improve a C-class article to B-class, let alone meet GA standards. Therefore I'd like some suggestions and guidance for improving the article.
Update. I've added a new section about the properties of the number. Hopefully this improves the quality of the article closer to B-Class. Electorus (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Electorus. Have you ever thought of rewriting them into prose and adding more sources for each? Also, since the article is ridiculously obnoxious, you could truncate the section "Selected 13-digit numbers (1,000,000,000,001–9,999,999,999,999)" off. You could also try what the number 1,000,000,000,000 is by explaining its predecessor and successor and writing its properties, given the reliable sources you have found, as long as you need to follow the WP:NUM/G. You can see some samples of GA about numbers like 1 (number) and 69 (number). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I wrote this article in a way based on related large number articles like 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, so it looks more like a list of numbers in an order of magnitude rather than an article focusing on the number specifically. I'll try to adjust the structure and find more sources according to your advice. This may be harder than both GA articles you suggested though, because both 1 and 69 are more common in real life than this number. Electorus (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. After reviewing the article on Megalneusaurus (which is still not finished), I decided this time to do the same with the "Monster of Aramberri", which, in my opinion, covers the entire topic about this wonderful specimen. If the peer review is successful, I will propose immediately this article to the GA. I originally submitted this article to the GA and then to a peer review a few months ago. Unfortunately, I was very busy with other projects, and the peer reviewers were clearly not very interested in paleontology. Now that I am available again and my work is more detailed than before, I hope it can be given a second chance. As usual for this kind of review, I'm asking for users like FunkMonk and/or Jens Lallensack to help me. Slate Weasel is also welcome, but since he hasn't shown any sign of activity since late July 2025, I doubt he'll see this message.
@Amirani1746: After a quick skim, I think this article might be ready for a GAN, as any additional issues can be addressed there. I would suggest splitting some of the larger paragraphs for readability. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirani1746: A quick skim doesn't reveal any additional concerns. Since you have 7 promoted GAs, but have not reviewed any GANs, I recommend that you review some GAs now to build goodwill among the community, reduce the GAN backlog, and make it more likely that this article will be reviewed quickly. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in a bit late to say that there is no qpq system for GA reviews, Amirani is under no obligation to review articles himself. This specific article also failed GA previously due in part to a discrepancy between a statement and the given source, and this statement is now seemingly citing an preprint publication that has not been peer-reviewed and was published after that text was added to this article. Gasmasque (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article's already gone through a peer review once, but now considering that it's considerably different from the peer-reviewed version months ago, I request another peer review for this.
Several things that I kindly want reviewers to inform me include coherence & cohesion, whether some sections should be grouped together, and potential sourcing problems.
Hello, this is my very first contribution to Wikipedia. I've expanded this article massively. I'd appreciate any feedback on resources, structure, and content. Thanks you!
Nice work, Ztahmasebi. A couple comments on appearance.
Headings only begin with a capital letter. Everything else is usually lower case, a convention called "sentence case". See MOS:Headings. For example, "Contractualist Philosophers" should read "Contractualist philosophers". Headings shouldn't contain wikilinks.
To be accessible to everybody, images usually don't need to have px sizes assigned. See Help:Pictures. The photo of Rawls is an upright image so you can add that parameter.
Instead of calling out "see also" inline, insert a {{main}}, or {{see also}}, or {{further}} just after that section's heading. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE.
Check MOS:DASH. Wikipedia never has spaces around em dashes, and always has spaces around en dashes. (So you'll need to edit "there are some aspects in which contractualism-and Scanlon's contractualism in particular- is different".)
Generally, sources used to cite a Wikipedia article are not listed in Further reading. See MOS:FURTHER.
If you take care of these points, and expand the lead a little, you can raise this to C-class or even B-class. I appreciate that anyone can reach two of your sources: Le Pargneux and Ashford/Mulgan. Still much of this is over my head. Someone familiar with your subject will be needed to review this at WP:GAN. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @SusanLesch, thank you very much for taking the time to review my article and for the detailed suggestions. I’ll go through and address all of these. Much appreciated. ~~~~ Ztahmasebi (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article as I believe the topic is highly important to the political climate in various parts of the world and therefore deserves good or featured article status. I have personally spent a lot of time reading and developing the article and I believe it is time for more editors to chime in on how to improve the article.
Unfortunately, I think this article would need work to be considered for GA status. Even after my whacking it still has issues with unsourced statements. Furthermore, the article quality would be greatly improved (not just the sourcing, but other issues such as listiness) if sections currently sourced to news were rewritten based on scholarly sources about the topic to highlight trends and deeper analysis. (t · c) buIdhe17:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe Could you direct me to some of the sections with unsourced statements? I see the issue with listiness (and will be fixing that), and see a few "better source needed" tags, but is there anything more? Uness232 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, dealing with the listiness cannot be accomplished by deleting paragraph breaks. You will need to completely rewrite the sections based on higher-quality sources so that instead of, for example, listing pro-lgbt muslim organizations, instead it answers basic questions such as when muslim LGBT advocacy began, what inspired it, what are their goals and tactics, and so forth. (t · c) buIdhe01:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to raise the article from Start-class. I would like to hear about how this article could be improved so it can leave Start-class.
There should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum.
There is information in the lead that is not in the article body. The lead should be a summary of the article body text and not introduce new information.
Keep researching and adding information to the article. Some places where you can find more sources are WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, archive.org, doaj.org, or your local library system.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was working with other editors a few months back to bring the article to GA status. Some time has passed and the collab effort has gone stale, but I wanted to restart the work so that we could finish what we started. I want to know if the added "Academic sources" section looks good, if the cited sources are enough for the info in the article, and if there's anything else that would prevent a successful GA nomination the first time.
Very dated sources, 19C and earlier, are not generally reliable sources. They can be used for a historical view, e.g. "John Smith wrote in 1805 that ...", but not as a fact which is not referenced inline, only in the citations.
MA theses are not considered reliable sources.
Some of the details supplied in the citations are very unsatisfactory. For example cite 245 ""Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church – DW – 03/29/2024". dw.com. Retrieved 6 June 2025." dw.com and the retrieval date are minor details and the crucial information is missing. I would cite this as {{cite journal|url=https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-aramaic-christians-seek-support-in-their-church/a-68675395|journal=[[Deutsche Welle]]|title= Germany's Aramaic Christians seek support in their church|first=Christoph|last=Strack|date=3 September 2024}}</ref>
Cite 258 is poor. "nsilk (6 May 2013). "Syriac Orthodox Church Receives as Many as 800,000 New Converts in Central America – SCOOCH". Retrieved 6 June 2025." This should be SCOOCH News, publisher Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, date 6 May 2013. The headline is misleading as the text does not say new converts but that the church has been joined by another church with 600-800,000 members. Your text is even more misleading as it shows 800,000 as the total membership.
There are harv error messages in the source section. For a script which displays the error messages see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.
I find the referencing cluttered and difficult to read. Linking, archiving and retrieval dates are useful for sources that may disappear, articles and newspaper stories. They are pointless for books and just make the entry wordy and clumsy. I would delete and just show the bibliographical details. I prefer the citations section kept as clean as possible, with bibliographical details moved to the sources and additional information to notes.
@Dudley Miles Thanks for the comments on the referencing. Is there anything else that needs to be changed in any other criteria before the article is brought to GA? I will try and fix up the referencing soon. Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the whole article. This includes general MOS improvements and adjusted citations (both inline and bibliographical). The 19th century citation describes a basic biblical narrative from Acts of Apostles and already has 2 other citations; I've removed it altogether.
Wrote this article yesterday based in large part from journal articles and dug-up sources from around the time. Looking for feedback to make sure it's accessible to a layperson, informative about the election (i:e, doesn't gloss over any necessary attributes while focusing too much on small details), and doesn't contain too much jargon or waffle. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this article, which has already been assessed as a GA, has been improved significantly by various contributors, including User:Raskuly, myself, and several others. My goal is to create content worthy of being a featured article, not just here but on pages across the encyclopedia (I plan on also working on Charlotte High School (Punta Gorda, Florida), Lemon Bay High School, a new article I am working on for North Port High School, and Pensacola Christian College, then expand beyond schools to other institutions, historical stuctures, and other topics entirely. I think we've come a long way with the Port Charlotte High article, the only thing I think that might make it better would be some more well-referenced information on the school's athletics and a historical photo. I would love some constructive criticism in order to get this article (and others) from good to great.
I am. Additionally, I had started reviewing another of the articles on there, but the situation that gave me a lot of time to work on Wikipedia (being on light duty at work) eventually came to a close. With Christmas break now I should be able to work on that some more. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe: Since you are working towards your first successful FA nomination, I suggestion getting a mentor at WP:FAM. I also suggest reviewing articles at WP:FAC so you can build goodwill amongst the FAC community and better learn the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come for one of the most dramatic electoral swings in a modern western democracy, stay for what I hope is a solid and accessible crash-course in Ireland's peculiar political culture and electoral system. I think this is close to meeting the FA criteria but would appreciate a second opinion; I brought an article to FA status under a previous account, but that was nearly two decades ago(!) and in a completely different field. Many thanks! Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to take a deeper look when this gets nominated to FAC. For now, I'll leave some general comments that I'd expect to be addressed before nominating it to FAC.
The lede is of satisfactory length.
The "Leader since" and "Leader's seat" parameters should be sourced and mentioned in the article.
Explanatory notes should be sourced.
O'MalleyMcGraw2017 is unused. Suggest moving it to Further reading or removing it altogether.
The last two sentences in the Aftermath are unsourced.
Overall, the article is in a great shape and will be ready for FAC once these minor issues get fixed. I haven't read the prose but if there any issues with it, it could be quickly fixed at FAC. Vacant0(talk • contribs)14:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these! The O'Malley/McGraw shout is good, thanks – I will be going through it at the library tomorrow. I think the breadth of sourcing isn't quite 100% yet, so that's probably the main issue left to be resolved. I used "Election" as the heading because that's what's done in 1957 Canadian federal election, one of the relatively small number of national election FAs. But I'm not wedded to it. Thanks again! Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the licensing on all of your images is correct. I spot checked a few and didn't find any problems, but then I looked at File:2011 Irish general election.svg. It lists its source as https://www.electoralcommission.ie/constituency-reviews/boundary-committee-reports/ which is copyright 2024 The Electoral Commission. It also lists its author as 沁水湾, so not really clear what the story is. Stuff like this will be obsessed over at FAC so make sure you've got it all nailed down.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it as a featured list. I've been editing here for a while, but nothing of this scope. I would like to know if anything is missing and what other changes would be necessary to nominate it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
